Memorandum on Bratcher v. Akron Board of Realtors Appeals Court Hears Antitrust Law used by LDF Lawyers Against Housing Jim Crow

    President 
Hon. Francis E. Rivers 

PRESS RELEASE Director-Counsel 
egal efense und Teck Grsceners 

Sek Ak Director, Publie Relations 
NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. Jess He Vere, Inc 
10 Columbus Circle, New York, N.Y. 10019 * JUdson 6-8397 FOR RELEASE NIGHT NUMBER 212-749-8487 

“ers MONDAY 
pe April 17, 1967 

MEMORANDUM 

TO: OHIO REPORTERS 

FROM: Jesse DeVore, Director of Public Information 

ne APPEALS CCURT HEARS 
ANTITRUST LAW USED BY 
‘RIGHTS LAWYERS IN FIGHT 
AGAINST HOUSING JIM CROW 

CASE TITLE: Bratcher v. Akron Board of Realtors 

DATE OF ARGUMENT: April 17, 1967 

QUESTION PRESENTED: Does a combination and conspiracy not to sell or 
rent to Negroes in all white areas sufficiently 
restrain the interstate commerce of people, con- 
struction materials, and mortgages and insurance 
transactions so as to be prohibited by the 
Sherman Antitrust Act? 

NATIONAL NEWS The national fair housing bill that was defeated 
ANGLE: in Congress in 1966 and the current proposed 

legislation were and are based on the commerce 
clause on the ground that the sale and rental of 
housing is inherently an interstate event invol- 
ving the movement of people, construction material, 
mortgages, and insurance across state lines. 
Although Senator Everett Dirksen opposed last 
year's bill as being unconstitutional, the Anti- 
trust Division of the Justice Department has filsd 
an amicus curiae brief in support of the LDF posi- 
tion, This case, if successful, will effectively 
dispose of any constitutional pretext as a ground 
for opposing federal fair housing legislation. 

CINCINNATI ---Discriminatory practices of the 1800-member Akron Area 
Board of Realtors were attacked today in the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court 
of See by attorneys of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, 
ine. ULDE)). 

In the first suit of its kind to reach the appeals court level, 
LDF lawyers asked that the Board be “permanently enjoined and restrained 
because its members are operating in violation of Section 1 cf the 
Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Antitrust Act. 

LDF Director-Counsel Jack Greenberg asserts that the realtors 
"have engaged in an unlawful combination and conspiracy in restraint 
of interstate trade and commerce." 

This "combination and conspiracy has continuously had as its pur- 
pose and objective the prevention of Negro persons from owning real 
property in parts of Akron occupied solely or primarily by white 
persons," he asserts. 

To thestend, the Realtors are charged with: 

fusing. their services to Negroes desirous of living in areas 
the Realtors have delineated as "white" neighborhoods; 

* Quoting prices to Negroes far greater than those quoted to 
prospective white purchasers or renters of the same property; 

( more) 

Ss 



April 17, 1967 

F he ¥ Declining to list property where the owner requests an "open! 
mate icing; 

* Refusing to show property to Negroes after purporting to accept 
it on an "open" basis; 

* Misrepresenting to Negroes the reasons for failure to consum- 
mate a sale; 

Excluding Negro real estate brokers from the advantages and 
opportunities associated with membership in the Akron Area 
Board of Realtors. 

Charged with conspiring to discriminate are 28 Akron real estate 
firms as well as the Akron Area Board itself, an organization which 
does not list a single Negro among its 1800-odd members. 

LDF attorneys charge that Negroes are discriminated when: 

* Negro brokers have been denied benefits of membership on the 
Akron Area Board, thereby restraining the sale and rental of 
real property by Negroes; 

* Negro persons have been discouraged from moving to the Akron 
area because they have been unable to buy or rent. 

Among the plaintiffs on whose behalf the LDF filed the suit were 
a Negro Ph.D., who was denied housing listed "for sale or rent," and 
a white professor from a lily-white suburb who failed in his attempt 
to have his house listed with brokers on a non-discriminatory basis. 

The LDF case seeks to demonstrate that the real estate business 
is in large measure interstate commerce and thus subject to the federal 
antitrust laws. 

Mr. Greenberg led a group of lawyers including James M, Nabrit IT, 
Leroy D., Clark, Sheila Rush Jones, and Henry M. Aronson of the LDF 
staff; Jay Topkis of New York; Jack Day of Cleveland; and Norman 
Purnell of Akron, 

2305